Search

By Jessica Oaks

One of the biggest barriers facing environmentalists – and more simply, groups looking to protect the environment – is the lack of impact global environmental changes have on people's daily lives. It is easy to brush aside urgent issues like dwindling arctic ice and rising sea temperatures when one doesn't witness or experience these things firsthand. And in many cases, there is no immediate impact; to truly grasp the effects of climate change, some forethought is often required.

Only through educational outreach can people not directly connected to the issue be made to understand its importance. But how can you make people empathetic of a cause or plight if there's no way to experience it other than in theory? You must find a way to make them experience it directly. And believe it or not, virtual reality can do just that.

What is virtual reality?

Virtual reality – like books, television, radio, film, and the arts – is a medium for transmitting an idea or concept. The difference between virtual reality and other information outlets is that it allows individuals to be participants in their experience, not merely spectators. This unique relationship can provide for an experience that is not possible with other mediums. Reading about a subject is one thing; experiencing it firsthand is something altogether different.

Combining sight, sound, and movement (and occasionally touch and smell) into a single user experience, virtual reality can transport a person into wholly unique and new environments. Though the apparatus itself may look silly (after all, VR goggles still look like something out of 1980s science fiction), the worlds that virtual reality can create are anything but. It is a truly transformative technology and unlike anything else.

What are its commercial uses?

Thanks to companies like Samsung, Oculus, Google, and Sony, affordable virtual reality experiences are starting to become the norm rather than the exception. The commercial uses of virtual reality are many – perhaps most obviously, virtual reality is a perfect platform for gaming. With immersive environments and lifelike user interaction, VR gaming promises to deliver experiences that are more real, dynamic, and thrilling than ever. Already, gamers can climb mountains and engage in high-orbit dogfights. But gaming isn't the only commercial outlet for virtual reality. There is ample opportunity for its use in the educational, healthcare, and scientific fields as well.

Think of the possibilities. Doctors could view the body in new and novel ways, which could transform the way that diagnosis and treatment are prescribed. Patients could be made to understand both the extent of their illness and the mechanics of their treatment like never before. Nurses and care providers could receive more in-depth training for greater treatment outcomes. Though the industry hasn't quite lived up to its promise yet, virtual reality is making inroads into the healthcare sphere, and further development is all but guaranteed. And healthcare isn't the only field benefitting from virtual reality. The scientific and educational fields are too, as mobile providers like T-Mobile bring affordable virtual reality experiences right to the classroom.

How is virtual reality being used to improve matters?

It's a good question. Just how can virtual reality help prevent climate change? Put simply, by helping develop a sense of empathy and altruism among people from all socioeconomic backgrounds and cultures. Most people don't experience climate change on a day-to-day basis (or if they do, are unaware that climate change is the root cause of what it is they are experiencing). By providing virtual experiences via virtual reality, organizations can help build these emotions in skeptics and the uniformed alike. Children and adults can come to understand climate change and its impact by experiencing it in their own way – rather than by merely hearing or reading about it.

Colleges like Stanford University have experimented with virtual reality as a substitute for real-life experiences and found they do work. This is vital, because it shows that experiences can be informative and impactful even if they aren't "real," per se. Companies and organizations have leveraged this to help educate and engage people on the issue of climate change.

The Sierra Club, in conjunction with VR studio RYOT, made a virtual reality public service announcement advocating for policy change at the governmental level (and recruited respected actor Jared Leto to help). The New York Times utilized virtual reality to bring its readers under the ocean, to the top of the World Trade Center, and to the surface of Pluto – all in an effort to make educational experiences immersive and engaging. And scientists have created virtual reality experiences to help bring concepts to life in a way that can easily be grasped and understood by all. What better way to understand the impact trash has on ocean environments than to see it yourself?

But what is climate change?

Of course, this discussion is somewhat moot without discussing climate change itself. Climate change is an umbrella term used to describe global warming, and the many effects of this phenomenon, which include increasing water temperature, loss of polar and land ice, extreme weather phenomenon, and other environmental changes, including habitat loss.

Scientific consensus – backed by such organizations as NASA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Global Change Research Program, and the European Environment Agency – states plainly that these changes are man-made and the result of carbon dioxide production, primarily from the burning of fossil fuels.

Understanding and accepting that climate change is man-made is vital to reversing the phenomenon – and education is the first step to achieving this goal, which VR applications can help make possible.

Virtual reality as a tool for changing the world

Ultimately, virtual reality is a content medium that can inform and influence the public at large by immersing people in unique experiences. Just like literature, theater, film, television, and the arts, the topics and concepts that virtual reality tackle over the coming decades will be as diverse as the people who create this new type of content. But where virtual reality stands alone is that it provides an experience – it creates a relationship where the viewer is more than a spectator; he or she is a participant, and this makes all the difference in the impact that VR content can and will have.

Image credit: Flickr/Stuart Renkin

Jessica Oaks is a freelance journalist who loves to cover technology news and the ways that technology makes life easier. She also blogs at FreshlyTechy.com. Check her out on Twitter @TechyJessy.

By Paul Fincham

Green vehicles provide a more efficient fleet, while saving your business money on fuel, taxes, maintenance and even fleet insurance. When you pick cleaner vehicles, you are able to improve your balance sheet as well as your corporate social responsibility (CSR) cred.

So, what is the best approach to greening your fleet? The solutions below can result in cost savings from reduced fuel consumption, optimized route planning and improved vehicle maintenance.

1. Put limitations on vehicle make and model choice

When selecting or offering company vehicles to employees, you should take advantage of technical improvements and manufacturer enhancements to reduce emissions and fuel consumption. Your vehicle selection can reinforce company policies and priorities by moving toward hybrids, diesels, smaller cars or even car-sharing.

It is important to first gain employee buy-in. Being forced to change to a specific type of company vehicle can cause disharmony with some employees. So, it's important to communicate the advantages to them appropriately. Make them aware of the money it can save them: Employees will see reduced benefit in kind (BiK) taxes in some countries, as well as a savings in private fuel costs. Offering an acceptable amount of choice within your limits on CO2 emissions will also help to avoid employee dissatisfaction.

When looking to green your business vehicles, full consideration needs to be given to adopting electric vehicles (EVs). Running a few around town may make sense for those shorter journeys. But those traveling and building up higher mileage should need to consider the operational challenges that come with electric vehicles. Recharging, service, maintenance and repair can be more difficult for those undertaking longer journeys. Usually a mix of some petrol, diesel, hybrid and electric vehicles within your portfolio will provide you with a better solution. Make sure the right vehicle is being used for the right purpose.

When investigating vehicle choice, it is also important to take a whole-life cost approach. Whole-life costs include the cost of running and servicing a vehicle over its replacement cycle. This will provide the best estimate of real costs to your business. It can be argued that in most cases the whole-life cost of electric vehicles can be far more beneficial to your business. Yes, the up-front list price will be much higher when compared to petrol or diesel. Often the vehicle cost is considered as a barrier to purchase, but when savings of about 8 pence per mile in fuel and 20 to 30 percent in service, maintenance and repair costs are considered they can be well worth the initial investment.

2. Encourage eco-driving techniques

By influencing your employee’s driver behavior with education, training and communication, you can achieve significant improvements on your carbon footprint. Driver training can help to focus on things like better anticipation of potential hazards ahead, improved braking and gear changing technique for efficient fuel consumption. On average, you can realistically seek to reduce fuel consumption by 15 to 20 percent with the aid of driver training.

Not only does the adoption of eco-driving techniques cut fuel consumption, but it will also generate safer drivers with reduced risk of accidents and unwanted downtime as a result.

Many driver training providers also quote a reduction of up to 15 percent in fuel costs as a result of driver training. They believe that defensive drivers are 20 percent less likely to be involved in a collision, not to mention the savings in maintenance and repair.

3. Invest in vehicle technology

Better route planning and scheduling of vehicles through the use of telematics and GPS equipment helps to optimize the use of your vehicles. An efficient green fleet where the best vehicle is used for the job, or sending your closest vehicle to the next assignment, helps to reduce overall mileage making significant differences in CO2 emissions, fuel and maintenance. Access to the quickest routes and traffic information can significantly save wasted time on the road and reduce mileage.

Vehicle technology can also be used to measure driving techniques and encourage improved driver behaviour. Technology can help with reducing vehicle speed, maintaining a safe distance from other vehicles, concentration techniques and hazard perception.

4. Always question driver journeys

You should consistently be challenging your employees as to whether their journey is a necessity. Consider if there are alternatives available. Push for shared journeys or modes of transport with reduced CO2 emissions and overall costs. Ensuring that full consideration is given to each journey will instill a culture of operating a green fleet with fuel consumption and carbon emission reduction as a priority. In addition to this by capping business mileage you can automatically reduce unnecessary journeys which will naturally get weeded out.

Going green has become a prominent trend for business fleets and practices such as selecting fuel-efficient or hybrid vehicles to meet environmental legislation is continuing to grow in popularity. It’s the end of the road for gas-guzzling executive cars. More and more businesses are committed to meeting their corporate social responsibilities. By reducing emissions and greening your business vehicles you can not only meet your environmental obligations, but can clearly save money for your business as you go.

Image credit: Flickr/Will Wynne

Paul has 24 years’ experience in the motor insurance industry and has a wealth of knowledge in this area. As Motor Fleet Broker for Bluedrop Services, Paul specialises in Motor Fleet Insurance. He offers advice and support to customers managing Motor Fleets with a commitment to the environment, advising how to reduce your fleet insurance premiums through sustainability policies.

by Martin Baxter, Chief Policy Advisor, Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment — The referendum vote in favour of the UK leaving the EU raises significant questions for businesses, professionals and the wider public on environmental protection policy. 

In the lead-up to the referendum, IEMA members were overwhelmingly of the view that being a member of the EU is good for business and good for the environment.  There was a real concern that environment and climate policy risked being watered down if the vote was to leave.  Environment and sustainability professionals will now look to the future with some sense of uncertainty.

It is therefore essential that the government gives a commitment that, in negotiating the terms of the UK’s exit from the EU, an equivalent or enhanced level of environmental protection and climate policy will be implemented here in the UK. 

In establishing the UK’s future direction, Government must develop progressive policies for the UK to transition to a low carbon, resource efficient and sustainable economy which delivers real social value over the long-term.  It must seize the opportunity to accelerate the transformational change needed to meet long-term sustainability challenges and provide a much-needed boost to UK jobs and productivity. 

An immediate test of the Government’s commitment to environment and sustainability lies in the adoption of the UK’s Fifth Carbon Budget.  We urge the Government to adopt the independent Committee on Climate Change recommendation for a 57% emissions reduction, giving a clear and positive signal of its long-term environmental commitment.

IEMA is committed to providing leadership and support to ensure that environment and sustainability are placed at the heart of decision making and that policies are in place to develop a sustainable economy for the future.

 

 

by Elisabeth Jeffries — A social media campaign swept across the planet in 2010, clamouring for a halt to the use of palm oil in Kit Kats. Six years on, manufacturer Nestlé now sources it through a producer traceability scheme and describes it as “palm kernel” on the wafer bar wrapper. Given the procurement shift, this type of compensating alteration makes sense. However, companies may soon find their choice of wording will need more refinement, as sweeping changes are under way, and labels are the first line of attack.

One aim is to squeeze product description into narrower boundaries. In the US, for example, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed a revised nutrition facts panel in 2014, which is now under consultation.

“Nutrition labels were first required 23 years ago, with the only change being the addition of transfats. Science changes; the FDA wants to update the label and, ideally, increase its effectiveness,” explains Michael Jacobson, founder and president of US consumer advocacy organisation the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI).

The EU has also set its sights on producers, reforming labelling in a step-by-step process. A nutrition declaration is mandatory from December 2016. “The new legislation will help consumers make informed decisions on the food they buy. It could also contribute to a better lifestyle and healthier choices,” says Erico Brivio, European Commission (EC) spokesman on food health.

In addition, meat from swine, sheep, goat and poultry must, since April 2015, be labelled with the country where the animal was reared and slaughtered. Like the US FDA, some of the EC focus is on sugar, which must now be reported in grams per 100g or 100ml, removing wording options previously available.

Middle-income countries have made even stricter interventions, such as Ecuador. In Chile, junk food is now prohibited to children under 14. Eliminating false consumer information, minimising ingredient fraud and removing barriers to free trade are main motivations for the change.

The source of concern is clear: according to the World Health Organisation, global obesity has more than doubled since 1980, as has adult diabetes in the US. Sugary food and drink, it is argued, is contributing to this epidemic, while producer honesty in doubt.

But as Jacobson comments: “companies don’t lie about sugar content, but they might make distracting claims on antioxidants or the advantages of 10 vitamins/minerals in sugary foods. They certainly don’t highlight sugar content voluntarily,” he says. Useful information is set alongside colourful, tactile packaging or cartoon characters to entice the buyer, and information added to minimum requirements. But that may get harder.

In the US, print size, positioning and wording are all under scrutiny, and an industry model proposed, particularly for sugar. “Including ‘added sugars’ [sugars added to foods and not present in whole fruit and vegetables] is one way to improve labels,” says Michael Jacobson. This is an especially controversial measurelong under dispute. Beverage companies have the most to lose because the presence of added sugars in their products is particularly high. “Added sugar” labels would mark out the product as unhealthy.

To combat the problem, the usual tactic is to act first. “Trade organisations have lobbied against stronger regulation on issues such as food labelling, high fat, salt and sugar taxes, suggesting self-regulation and providing wider choice are better ways to help consumers make more informed choices,” comments Spencer Fox of Tovera Consulting.

This has been the case in most countries. But as Fox emphasises, “they have never agreed on how to provide the best information to consumers.” The traffic light system devised by many food retailers is one example. “These can vary enormously across different brands and retailers and can be confusing. It seemed inevitable therefore that governments would step in at some point, and I think most of the big brands have been preparing for that,” he says.

Will label changes succeed in altering diets and educating the consumer, thus forcing manufacturer ingredient or product substitution? Probably not. For one thing, there is some justification for resistance to product reformulation, especially in the case of sweet substances. “Non-caloric sweeteners don’t provide the bulk that sugar provides in pies and biscuits for example, costs depend on the sweetener, and parents have long not wanted to give their kids artificially sweetened foods,” says Michael Jacobson.

For another, labels are part of a bigger package; marketing in the guise of information.  Product diversification maintains the broader presence of the brand, dwarfing nutritional information. However, a sense of threat is discernible on the high street, and has already prompted change.

For instance, brands like Coca-Cola and McDonalds now sell healthy food alongside junk, and use smaller containers. Innovative sweeteners like Stevia are now commonplace. And there is an upside.

As Michael Jacobson explains: “Companies love small cans, because, at least in the United States, they charge more and have lower ingredient and packaging costs. On the whole, I suspect that smaller cans could lead to less consumption,” he says. The smaller containers, such as Coca-Cola’s 15o ml can, attract a higher profit margin.

Meanwhile, the ICT boom continues, targeting consumers far beyond the food store. Researchers find customers generally unaffected by improved information, and social media campaigns short-lived and often ineffectual, as Brian Wansink, author of Slim by Design, explains. “Very little opposition comes from consumers. Facebook ‘like’ campaigns are not a form of activism but ‘clicktivism’,” he points out. In the US, Wansink indicates only 15-25% of buyers actively look at nutritional information, and none of these are obese.

Given continued impotence in the face of marketing ingenuity and endless ICT diversification, the battle between regulator and producer will thus continue. Among the newer demands is a type of cigarette pack warning. Taxes on fizzy drinks have been imposed in several countries, such as Mexico and the Pacific island of Samoa, and have been announced in the UK. A sugar tax is threatened across the globe. The drive for greater transparency will originate, not from mainstream consumers, but from strong governance and sound science. But as developing countries shift to Western diets, manufacturers can be sure of one thing: the recipe, rather than the label, will have to change.

International trade deals are never easy. Still, figuring out who is on first and second base post-Brexit adds a whole new dimension to bilateral trade negotiations.

First there was the European Union and U.S. trade deal, less affectionately known as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, an ambitious if not controversial concept that included trade advantages with the United Kingdom. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, American exports to the British Isles are notable. In 2015, the U.S. exported more than $56 billion in goods to the U.K. Britain did even better: It imported more than $57 billion to the U.S. that same year. And that’s without the sweeping provisions of the prospective TTIP in force.

But that was also before Britons voted to leave the EU in June.  Few believed the Brexit camp would actually succeed, including its organizer, former London Mayor Boris Johnson.

Still, U.S. President Barack Obama concretely spelled out the implications of Brexit -- and the U.S. losing the U.K. as a cross-table negotiating partner at the TTIP -- a few months before the June 23 vote, when he told Britons what could happen if Brexit went through.

“The U.K. is going to be in the back of the queue.” Obama was referring to the U.K.'s prospects of striking a new trade deal with its American business partner. It's not that trade with the U.K. doesn't matter to U.S. interests. But “negotiating with a big bloc,” like the EU, was in its interests as well, Obama said.

But of course, that was pre-Brexit. And it was also before the U.S. found that concluding the TTIP with the Europeans was going to be much harder than expected.

European negotiators accuse the U.S. of being unwilling to negotiate on terms, including workers’ rights and the ability for EU member states to bid on contracts. A clear, balanced negotiation toward those two issues is a sticking point for European member states.

It's also apparently an issue of contention for the U.S. team.

“That’s no basis for negotiations,” Bernd Lange, the EU’s chief negotiator, complained in reference to America's perceived unwillingness to talk about labor standards and public procurement of contracts. “Internally we’ve said we’re going to give it a chance until July, but I can’t imagine the U.S. will have a big change of heart. I’m expecting this won’t work out.”

And that’s where the U.S.-U.K.’s hopeful new trade deal comes in.

Last week, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and the U.K.’s brand-new foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, joined forces at a press conference in London to discuss a new plan to push a trade agreement with the U.K. back up to the front of the queue. Both Kerry and Johnson acknowledged that, while a firm deal between the two nations can't proceed until the U.K. has actually left the EU, there was nothing preventing the two countries from hammering out the deal together, the Guardian reported last week.

"[Clearly] you can begin to pencil things in, you can’t ink them in,” Johnson summarized.

Well, that was last week's understanding, apparently. This week, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Francois Hollande and the U.K.'s new Prime Minister Theresa May re-discussed the terms that prompted the Brexit vote to go through in the first place: Europe's Freedom of Movement rules.

Under the terms of EU membership, workers have the right to freedom of movement throughout EU member states. It's a contentious issue in northern England, and has been a sticking point to continuing EU membership in the past.

But this week, EU representatives spoke candidly of loosening those rules for Britain, if it would stay in the EU. The price would be stiff, however: In return for an "emergency brake" on EU migration for seven years, the U.K. would forfeit some of its voting rights.

As for a U.S.-U.K. trade deal, however, all bets are off until the EU and Britain (which is still formally part of the EU) have clarified their relationship. That leaves the Obama administration not only without added leverage at the EU bargaining table, but without a clear path to a U.K. business deal. But knowing that the country it refers to as "no closer ally" will remain at the the TTIP bargaining table may make the wait all the easier for the next round of U.S. negotiators.

That is, of course, unless Donald Trump has a say in the matter as the next president ...

Images: Flickr/Sam; Flickr/Mike Licht

Last week, the Republicans closed a convention that was long on no-names but short on substance and energy. And this week, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) found itself kneecapped. Over the weekend, WikiLeaks launched a database revealing that plenty of staffers at the party’s headquarters wanted to do what they could to ensure Bernie Sanders was not the Democratic nominee. The brouhaha led to the resignation of Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a six-year U.S. representative from Florida whose tenure as the party’s chair could be described as rocky at best.

Yes, her removal from the party’s leadership reveals cracks in Democrats’ veneer of unity. It also shows that 20 years after email has become the chosen means of communications at work, people still have a lot to learn about how to handle this medium.

Wasserman Schultz was already under fire from many within the Democratic Party’s hierarchy. As a spokesperson for the party, she was the most painful and boring public speaker for the Democrats since Walter Mondale. Her role in scheduling debates on Saturday nights during the Democratic primary season was arguably a ploy to minimize exposure for Sanders. But it was also a clumsy tactic that failed to showcase the candidates to a broader audience, including that small but influential group of swing voters. She lacked the chops to serve as an effective fundraiser and was accused of appointing key supporters and aides to plum DNC positions.

An article on Politico described Wasserman Schultz as a person disliked by both Clinton and President Barack Obama; both wanted her out, but neither wanted to make the move and deal with what had become a huge headache and constant bumbler coming from the Sunshine State.

The media were quick to pounce on the red meat in these emails, which alternated between disturbing and bizarre. DNC staffers at one point wanted to target Sanders’ faith, an odd strategy considering Wasserman Schultz, like Sanders, is Jewish. Furthermore, American Jews have long been an important part of the Democratic coalition. There were also plenty of personal attacks against Sanders, who many Democrats resent because he was long registered as an independent until he decided to run for president.

But politics is a nasty business. When John F. Kennedy ran against Herbert H. Humphrey in the 1960 Democratic primary, Kennedy's campaign distributed anti-Catholic newsletters that were attributed to Humphrey's campaign. Kennedy won that primary and eventually the election. George W. Bush's 2000 campaign was revived thanks in part to surrogates spreading rumors about John McCain's personal life during the South Carolina primary.

The crew behind the WikiLeaks release, along with many partisans, suggest that the DNC’s clear preference of Hillary Clinton shows democracy is being undermined. That finding is a stretch. The truth is that neither the DNC nor the Republican National Committee (RNC) are “small-d” democratic or even “small-r” republican institutions. They do not exist to ensure a fair political process. Both parties exist to support political office nominees who they think are the best candidates -- and have a history of rewarding loyalty and connections. If the DNC thought Sanders was a slam-dunk, its leaders would have pivoted from Hillary. If the RNC thought allowing delegates to vote their “conscience” and not for Donald Trump would have salvaged the party’s hopes, they would have allowed a tweaking of the rules last week during their convention in Cleveland.

In fact, despite the controversy over the primaries and whether they are “rigged” or fair, we forget that this process is relatively new. The 1968 presidential campaign was the last time party insiders decided who would be both parties’ nominees for president. The Democrats, reeling from the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, chose Humphrey over anti-war candidate Eugene McCarthy; Richard Nixon, who had previously lost a presidential campaign to John F. Kennedy and then a governor’s race in California two years later, was rewarded by the GOP for his loyalty and work in campaigning for Republicans across the country.

The shift toward the primaries determining party nominees was slow. The Democratic freak-out over George McGovern’s disastrous 1972 campaign led to the inclusion of many “super delegates,” which Sanders claimed was undemocratic. Four years later, Republican party elders were arguably behind Gerald Ford’s nomination over Ronald Reagan, when he was narrowly selected at a nail-biter of a convention even though he won a clear majority of votes during that year’s primaries.

What should bother citizens is that while both parties operate as private organizations, they take copious amounts of public funds in running their campaigns. The real solution is to tell both the Democrats and Republicans to do what they want, but with no taxpayer money from any level of government at all. The federal government’s funding of presidential elections has declined since it peaked in 1994, but both parties still enjoy a remarkable advantage over third parties. A reform of both laws and funding of campaigns could help open up the process to minor parties.  Neither the Democrats or Republicans, however, want to see that happen as they have succeeded ensuring they are entrenched in the voting process with no alternatives.

Wasserman Schultz’s fall (no, she did not get promoted), her pathetic attempt to hold onto power, and what could be the end of her political career together offer lessons that reach beyond partisan politics. Any executive or employee in government, civil society, or business needs to learn what should have been obvious years ago: Be careful what you and your colleagues discuss in an email. Meeting rooms, offices and, yes, even coffee shops with espresso machines blaring in the background exist so that conversations can go on behind closed doors or in private. If you think something in an email could be forwarded out of the office -- or, even more dramatically, could be revealed after a hack -- then you should not write or text it.

We can debate whether the Democrats were undemocratic, but what is clear is that many of them were arrogant and, certainly, short-sighted.

Image credit: Medill DC/Flickr

For over a century, the U.S. based its energy infrastructure -- and therefore its economy -- on electricity generated from coal. Coal producers were influential in the halls of Washington, D.C. and state legislatures. But then new, cleaner and more efficient sources of energy rapidly emerged. Hence the recent collapse of the industry caught many analysts and investors by surprise.

Coal companies indulged in finger-pointing at the Obama administration’s clean-energy policy and had plenty to say about environmentalists as well. But many analysts' response is that the natural gas and fracking boom are what led the shift away from coal.

And investors, from individuals playing the market to large pension funds, were suddenly deer in headlights as these companies’ securities buckled. Had companies taken a closer look at government policies, technological trends and forecasts, they -- along with their shareholders -- would not have been caught flat-footed, a recent report suggests.

Carbon Tracker, a think tank focused on the impact of climate change on capital markets, called out the energy industry for the typical boilerplate risk disclosures plunked into the filings submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). These disclosures can be found in the risk factors and management’s discussion and analysis (MDNA) section in an annual report, or 10K, that publicly-held companies are required to submit to the SEC.

Much of this problem stems from the fact that attorneys specializing in capital markets and securities do not want any disclosures that could spook their clients’ investors. This, of course, could harm the relationship between a company and its retained outside counsel (or threaten that attorney’s employment if he or she is on the company’s payroll). Most attorneys drafting securities filings look for precedent; i.e., they scrub through previous filings in order to gauge how their colleagues at other firms have drafted such disclosures.

The desired outcome is that investors can rest assured, and in the long run, the company is protected in the event conflict over such disclosures plunge it into litigation. Therefore, as Carbon Tracker’s report concurs, coal companies -- and their investors -- suddenly found their business and their stock value drop spectacularly as if it occurred without warning.

Carbon Tracker’s analysts, however, suggest that the coal industry’s demise hardly occurred in a vacuum. A more holistic discussion of risks that could emerge from government policy changes, new technologies, and a broader discussion of future trends and forecasts could have prevented coal companies and their stakeholders from being blindsided. And whatever one may think of the coal industry, these companies’ executives -- had they been armed with better information (or chose to read what was publicly available) -- could have been more proactive in fine-tuning their firms’ scenario planning. As a result, they could have mitigated the impact of the shift away from coal, from tactics such as diversifying their portfolios or even avoiding the mergers and acquisition binge that occurred earlier this decade.

One of the coal industry’s failures, Carbon Tracker points out, is the type of data on which these companies relied. Most companies leaned on “reference case” data that the U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA) issues on a regular basis. The EIA makes it that its modeling used to suggest trends in the energy industry should not be used as forecasts, as they do not necessarily take into account policy changes at the federal or local level. In sum, EIA data assumes a “business as usual” scenario.

But the reliance on the EIA’s data overlooked the rapid technological change ongoing within the energy sector and the impact of new laws passed in a drive to stem the risks of climate change. Instead, companies should have frankly discussed the impact of the greenhouse gas emissions targets that have become more commonplace across the U.S. While many environmentalists attack the growth of natural gas consumption across America (much of which is sourced by fracking), utilities often made the switch so that they could still be relevant – and profitable – as more stringent regulations related to climate change emerged. Carbon Tracker suggests using data based on the "2 Degree Scenario” espoused by the International Energy Agency (IEA).

Carbon Tracker suggests these companies overlooked the impact of these new mandates on their business. At the same time, many companies arguably cherry-picked third-party data. That data, in turn, was spun to demonstrate that their companies were still viable despite the usual risk. In layperson’s terms, if these companies buried their heads in the sand long enough, they would weather this storm.

They didn’t. And now thousands of coal miners, along with other professionals who once worked in this industry, are jobless, with few retraining programs available to them.

Carbon Tracker suggests a four-pronged approach for energy companies in order for them to be more transparent, allowing investors to have a more lucid understanding of the risks involved in investing in these companies:

• Regulators, including the SEC, should mandate disclosures that integrate market assumptions, the impact of emissions reduction targets and a franker discussion by executives about short- and long-term risks,


• The EIA should consider climate change targets when issuing its forecasts,


• Companies need to offer more realistic reorganization plans in the event they fall into bankruptcy,


• And auditors must develop a more rigorous approach when comparing forecasts, projects and financial reports from a variety of sources.

This report offers lessons for individual investors, too. The updates you receive from companies in which you own stock are important. Whether they are delivered by links you receive in the email, or thick envelopes dumped into your mailbox, they need to be clicked on or opened. And if the language in these reports seem to vague or smack as boilerplate prose, then do more research on these firms, and the wider industry, so that your portfolio does not take a hit.

Image credit: Kimon Berlin/Flickr

Microbeads were once touted by personal care and consumer packaged goods (CPG) companies as the perfect way to brighten smiles and leave skin perfectly exfoliated.

Then, report after report suggested these tiny little beads -- often hardly visible to the naked eye -- had become an enormous environmental nightmare. Many municipal systems could not filter out these tiny particles of plastic. So, they made their way into waterways -- where marine life and seabirds happily gobbled them up, to their detriment and that of their ecosystems.

Companies struggled to find a solution or alternative to this problem as it became apparent that humans were already using the oceans as a massive plastics dumping ground. Many of the world’s leading personal care brands insist they are finding solutions. In most cases, these efforts combined research into natural alternatives or phasing out microbeads entirely. Nevertheless, environmental organizations, including Greenpeace, say not enough has been done.

To that end, Greenpeace recently evaluated the world’s largest personal care and CPG companies’ commitments on microbeads. While its report highlights the companies that are taking action to confront this growing problem, Greenpeace also calls out many companies for having vague or opaque commitments – that is, if they have even made a commitment at all.

So who are the leaders? Amongst the highest scorers are American firms Colgate-Palmolive and L Brands (which owns Bath & Body Works, Victoria’s Secret and Pink). The German companies Belersdorf and Henkel -- which are the world’s seventh and eleventh largest personal care companies, respectively -- are also singled out as having the most proactive plans related to microbeads. Greenpeace lauds the companies' commitments to reformulating their products without microbeads. But with such praise comes caveats -- which in general are that companies are not applying their policies to all of their products, or they are only applying their elimination of such ingredients to a certain type of plastic.

Some of the world’s most recognizable brands are in the bottom tier of this list. Greenpeace targeted Amway, Estee Lauder, GlaxoSmithKline, Mary Kay, Revlon and LVMH (as in Louis Vuitton and other luxury brands) for what it says is a lack of any publicly issued policy on microbeads, or a very narrow definition of how the companies describe the term. “It is silent” is the typical barb throughout the report when Greenpeace describes how a company is taking on the microbeads challenge.

In Greenpeace’s view, the only viable solution is a ban on microbeads. Its United Kingdom chapter, for example, is urging the country’s new prime minister, Teresa May, to pass a law barring microbeads from cosmetics and other personal care products.

U.S. President Barack Obama signed federal legislation late last year that will ban microbeads from “rinse-off cosmetics” by July 1, 2019. Some U.S. states, including California, had already banned such ingredients from personal care products. The new federal law is hardly an outright ban, however, so look for CPG companies to split hairs with federal regulators over what exactly that law will cover in the future.

Leave it to environmental groups to convince companies that the trillions of microbeads that end up in waterways and create problems for marine life have no obvious solution – other than a total ban.

Image credit: MPCA Photos/Flickr

Last month GM Chairman and CEO Mary Barra delivered a commencement address at the Stanford Graduate School of Business. GM’s Green website shared a couple of quotes from her speech, framing them as “soundbites that reinforce her commitment to sustainability.” Here's what they chose:

“A company’s success depends on how well you satisfy your customers.  But changing the world goes well beyond serving customers – it’s also about serving society.”

“As a visionary leader, you should be thinking about more than just the next quarter. You should also be thinking about the next decade … and what your company’s reputation and place in the world will be after 40 quarterly results.”

Six months earlier GM proudly reported that in 2015 it was the No. 1 seller in the U.S. and China, the two largest car markets in the world. “In the U.S., GM’s total sales were up 5 percent supported by the momentum of vehicles like the Chevrolet Silverado and Colorado, the GMC Sierra and record crossover deliveries," the company said in a statement. And in China, “SUV deliveries were up 144 percent, led by new models such as the Buick Envision and Baojun 560.”

Every month since January 2014 -- the same month May Barra became CEO -- the company has sold “more full-size pickups than any other original equipment manufacturer, ” GM said in another update published this month. And last week GM reported on a record second-quarter profit, driven by increased demand for pickup trucks and large sport utility vehicles (SUVs) in North America.

It seems that while CEO Barra claims to be committed not just to meeting customers’ wants but also to sustainability, GM’s sales data portrays a very different picture. Now, is it an example of greenwashing? Not necessarily. I do think, however, this could be an example of CEOs’ limited power to advance sustainability in their companies, even if they share Barra’s sentiment that “as leaders, we have an obligation to act responsibly and courageously for people and the planet.”

Usually it is assumed that CEOs play an important role in implementing sustainability and integrating a triple-bottom-line approach in their organizations. A new report entitled CEO Decision-Making for Sustainability explores the complexity behind this assumption, looking more specifically at the question: Why do some CEOs make the shift to incorporate sustainability into their decision-making (and what holds others back)?

Published by the Network for Business Sustainability South Africa, this report provides not just valuable answers to this question, but also some clues to the question I’d like to raise about the overall capabilities of CEOs when it comes to putting sustainability at the center of their businesses.

The report is based on a review of prior research combined with insights gathered from interviews with 84 CEOs, board members, and sustainability executives from a range of global companies (most interviewees though were from South Africa). And it suggests three themes influencing CEO decision-making: personal readiness, factoring in the internal and external contexts, and a final ‘gut check’ (including the following drivers: meeting performance expectations, being seen as a good steward of the company, and the need to uphold personal legacy in the company).

In addition, the authors, Dr. Stephanie Bertels, Jess Schulschenk, Andrea Ferry, Vanessa Otto-Mentz and Esther Speck, point out to three main obstacles preventing CEOs from prioritizing sustainability:

1. I didn’t know enough about environmental and social issues.


2. I wasn’t able to make a clear link to why this mattered for my business.


3. I could understand the link, but there were competing priorities.

These findings indicate two main factors – personal and environmental -- dictating what CEOs do and don’t do when it comes to sustainability. While the study does not suggest which one of the two is more powerful, I believe it is the latter – the environment in which the CEO operates. It should be noted this refers to both the internal environment, i.e. inside the company, and external environment, i.e. markets, level of competition and trends.

One reason is that sustainability is usually associated with long-term goals, and hence could be left aside or ignored when short-term issues come up. As one CEO was quoted in the report:

“I think if there’s a very full agenda of near-term business-type problems, when you prioritize the different things that the organization can be doing, I think it’s at that point that sustainability can get pushed pretty firmly to one side.

"People are saying we’ve got pressure from shareholders to raise the economic performance in the business and that will tend to push out much of the other stuff. Any management team has only got a finite amount of bandwidth and the organization has only got so much change muscle. They will devote that to what they see as the highest priority things.

"If the near-term pressures are very great, then some of the longer-term corporate social responsibility pressures will just get pushed to one side.”

Another reason is connected to the way the CEO compensation is structured. One of the CEOs interviewed explained:

“On the one hand, boards say that sustainability is what we believe in, but they remunerate their people on a basis that actually forces them to go against this.

"On paper, we’re all for corporate governance, but they’re actually encouraging bad behavior. I think … if you don’t tackle this one, we’ll be talking about this in 20 years’ time.”

These observations are refreshing in their honesty, as in many cases CEOs seem to ignore or underestimate these issues. For example, in PwC’s 19th Annual Global CEO Survey, 82 percent of CEOs said their company prioritizes long-term over short-term views. Can you really believe it when at the same time climate change and environmental damage is at the bottom of their list of key threats? According to this list, CEOs are mostly concerned about over-regulation, geopolitical uncertainty and exchange rate volatility.

More indication on what’s really going on can be found in Rana Foroohar’s excellent new book "Makers and Takers: The Rise of Finance and The Fall of American Business." In her book, Foroohar explores the impact of the financial-ization of America — “the trend by which finance and its way of thinking have come to reign supreme” on American business and society. And she makes the case that “the type of short-term, risky thinking, that nearly toppled the global economy in 2008” is still very dominant, especially in American public companies.

This short-termism is a reflection of the idea that companies need first and foremost to maximize shareholder value and pressures by investors and the markets on companies for short-term decision making (for example, stock buybacks), which many times result in sacrificing long-terms interests.

Foroohar writes that most CEOs don’t push back against short-term pressures, except the ones who are also “high-profile founder-owners who have a certain cult of personality” like Alibaba’s Jack Ma and Starbucks’s Howard Schultz. (I would add to this list visionary and fearless CEOs like Unilever’s Paul Polman.) All the rest tend to accept the shareholder value model, either because it’s very hard to push back against Wall Street or because they also benefit from it: Their incentives are usually aligned with short-term financial metrics, and the bulk of their salary is paid in stock options.

It seems that the business environment in which most companies operate is more powerful than most CEOs. And when this environment still doesn’t prioritize sustainability, what you get at the end of the day is a CEO preaching sustainability, while making record profits by selling more SUVs and light trucks. This is important not because CEOs should walk the talk (and they should), but because it means that in order for business to embrace sustainability we need to focus on changing and redesigning the business environment, not on the CEOs. If the environment changes, they will follow.

Image credit: Flickr/Banalities

Why would an American car company and a Mexican tequila company ever team up? In the case of Ford Motor Co. and Jose Cuervo: to make bioplastics from an agave byproduct.

Ford researchers are testing the durability and heat resistance of the agave material for use in vehicle interior and exterior components like wiring harnesses, storage bins and HVAC units. The initial assessments “suggest the material holds great promise due to its durability and aesthetic qualities,” the automaker said a press release.

If the bioplastic is successfully developed, it could reduce the weight of car parts which would improve fuel economy. The bioplastic would also prevent the use of petrochemicals and decrease the overall environmental impact of vehicles. A typical car contains about 400 pounds of plastic.

“At Ford, we aim to reduce our impact on the environment,” said Debbie Mielewski, Ford senior technical leader, sustainability research department, in a statement. “As a leader in the sustainability space, we are developing new technologies to efficiently employ discarded materials and fibers, while potentially reducing the use of petrochemicals and light-weighting our vehicles for desired fuel economy.”

Mielewski began researching alternative materials at Ford in 2000. Her team has since developed car parts made from materials like wheat straw and coconut fiber. So the agave concepts will join an impressive list.

“Jose Cuervo is proud to be working with Ford to further develop our agave sustainability plan,” added Sonia Espinola, director of heritage for Cuervo Foundation and master tequilera, in a statement. “This collaboration brings two great companies together to develop innovative, earth-conscious materials.”

Agricultural biomass waste and the use of conventional plastic are two big environmental problems

Agricultural biomass waste is a huge problem. Five billion metric tons of biomass is generated every year from agriculture, according to the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP), which is equivalent to about 1.2 billion tons of oil.

About 1 million tons of agave tequilana plants are processed every year by the Mexican tequila industry, and they create significant biomass waste. It takes a minimum of seven years for agave plants to grow. Once they are harvested, the heart of the plant is roasted, then ground and its juices are extracted for distillation. Jose Cuervo is already finding uses for the agave fiber byproduct. It is used as compost for its farms, and local artisans use it to make crafts and paper.

On the flip side, the automotive industry is a heavy user heavy user of plastic. A car has over 20,000 different parts, on average, which are often made from conventional plastic. Considering about 8 percent of global petroleum use goes toward plastic, identifying opportunities to use bioplastic is needed. The use of bioplastic has the potential to reduce the use of petroleum and cut down on agricultural biomass waste, particularly if the Ford and Jose Cuervo partnership is successful.

Ford's 16-year journey with sustainable materials

The partnership with Jose Cuervo is not Ford’s first foray into researching the use of sustainable materials. The iconic car company began research into such materials in 2000. Ford now uses several types of bio-based materials in its vehicles and is testing more, including algae, tomato peel and carbon dioxide.

Ford’s F-150 serves as a good example of its use of more sustainable materials. For the 2015 F-150, Ford partnered with aluminum suppliers Novelis and Alcoa to recycle aluminum scraps from its manufacturing process for use in the pickup truck. Most of the scraps come from stamping windows into body panels. They make up as much as 40 percent of the original metal used. Recycled seat fabric fibers are also used in the F-150.  Waste material from seat fabric production is turned into new yarns that are woven into seat fabrics. The result is seat fabric fibers made from 100 percent recycled material, including plastic water bottles. About 30 20-ounce plastic water bottles go into the seat fabric of every F-150 XLT.

Image credit: Ford